KANBAN AT SCALE: A SIEMENS HEALTH SERVICES CASE STUDY (BENNET VALLET & DAN VACANTI) - LKCE13

Kanban At Siemens Health

Services

Bennet ValletDaniel S. Vacanti

11/04/13DO NOT REPRODUCE

© Corporate Kanban 2013

Is it possible to do Kanban without doing Kanban?

Does it even matter that we “do Kanban”?

Kanban at Siemens Health Services

A Philadelphia Story

Siemens Health Services

A strategic part of the Siemens Healthcare portfolio, HS offers a broad range of clinical and financial IT applications, as well as outsourcing and professional services to support health providers across the continuum of care.

• Org of about 500 people

• 15 cross-functional teams

• 3 continents• Complex software

deployed to hundreds of Healthcare facilities

• Highly regulated• Mission Critical

Soarian Revenue Cycle

Mature Scrum Process since 2005

20 day sprintsStable feature teamsRelease Cycles about every 12 months

Features Epics

Epics User Stories

Release Features

The Problem

Predictability

Operational Efficiency

Quality

Predictability

Predictability

Predictability

Predictability

Completing “potentially shippable stories” in predictable 20 day time-boxed incrementsAccurately estimating story and feature completion timeframes

Completion of features on a regular cadence

Providing transparent and actionable metrics

The business and culture at HS requires a high degree of certainty, predictability and transparency.Internal Decision Checkpoints and quality gates require firm commitments, low risk tolerance and very little flexibility in terms of cost, schedule and scopeCommitments to customers and the market requires very high levels of predictability in terms of functionality and delivery timeframes

Cost of delay has a high premium and predictability trumps everything

ContinuousCustomer Validation

Infrastructure

People

Process

Tools

Work Units

Goals Drive Quality Reduce Cycle Time Improve Predictability

BalancedThroughput

Environments

Lean Agile Practices

Learning Organization

Systems Thinking

Effective Tools

Focus Area

Legend:

Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) Excellence

PLM Excellence Core Team. Chartered by

senior management to drive process improvements

The Approach

Idealized Design

Focus on transforming the whole system rather than improving parts of the system

Idealized Design

Design the system with which we would replace the existing system right now as if we were free to replace the existing system with whatever system we wanted

Idealized Design

Requires participation of everyone who willbe affected by it. Ownership of the resulting plan must be widely spread by those who had a hand in preparing it

Flow Team Strategy

We needed to shift the paradigm and deliver results quickly

Big bang approach with high degree of work-unit and workflow standardization and cohesion across all teams

Raise the bar on quality

Flow Team Strategy

Deploy coaches into all teams

Develop and execute education and communication strategy

Engage external expert(s) as needed

Installed large screen TV monitors in all team rooms in

Philadelphia and Kolkata

Use electronic board for all feature teamsSupport Kolkata team members Invest heavily in metric capture

Education, Coaching and

Rollout

Teams & ResponsibilitiesPLM Excellence Core Team

Flow Team

SF Operational Flow Team

Process Design TeamOperational/Implementation Teams

SF 3.4.100 Planning Team

• Driving and overseeing PLM-wide improvement projects• Advocating and promoting new approaches to Workflow Management

• Identifying and improving key Agile practices

• Defining and rolling out new Kanban Workflow Mgmt. Process & Tools

• Driving convergence of Version One usage

• Defining key metrics• Cross functional• Includes key SF participants • Implementing Inception Process

• Supporting & enabling new process implementation

• Actively monitoring workflow and removing obstacles

• Operationalize new processes

• Improve execution of current processes There is significant overlap in membership between the PLM Excellence Core Team, the various Process Definition Teams,

and some of the Operational Core Teams. The process definition teams are responsible for the education, coaching and rollout to the operational teams. They will also remain in place until D4. The PLM Excellence Core team is responsible for educating the SF and SC SMTs.

The Flow team is a cross business unit team, multi-

disciplinary and all technical and management levels

21

But…coaching replaced formal compliance and governance

Kanban Coaching Guide

Responsibilities and Knowledge areas:• Kanban board• Connecting the process to the tools• Conducting the Stand-up• Role Flexibility / Swarming• Backlog Management & Prioritization• WIP Limits• Cycle Time & Metrics• Policies• Program Reviews and Retrospectives• Release Planning

PLM Excellence is our framework for driving long term systemic changes targeted at increasing our competitive position by improving our execution and throughput. These monthly communications are intended to keep you apprised of current activities and provide ways for you to access additional information. Please click here to find a link to our monthly status report. Initiatives featured in this month’s e-mail communication include Kanban, Inception, Agile Coaching, Build and BVT improvements, and the Learning Organization/Speaker Series.

Kanban: Kanban, which we will use to augment our current Agile processes, provides a method for optimizing the flow of work to improve cycle time, drive quality, and provide the visual transparency and metrics that we require to achieve the level of predictability we need. Kanban will help us work more effectively in achieving our vision and delivering the results that our customers expect.

The essential elements of Kanban are: Visualizing the flow of work Queues Using Pull vs Push Limiting Work in Progress Continuous Improvement

DON’T PUSHPULL

The essential elements of Kanban are: Visualizing the flow of work Queues Using Pull vs Push Limiting Work in Progress Continuous Improvement

DON’T PUSHDON’T PUSHPULLPULL

The Results

First, some metrics on the release before the

release that we limited WIP

(at the user story level)

Story Cycle Time Scatter Plot

y = 21

y = 40

y = 71

y = 126y = 133

y = 80

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

16-S

ep-1

1

23-S

ep-1

1

30-S

ep-1

1

7-O

ct-1

1

14-O

ct-1

1

21-O

ct-1

1

28-O

ct-1

1

4-N

ov-

11

11-N

ov-

11

18-N

ov-

11

25-N

ov-

11

2-D

ec-1

1

9-D

ec-1

1

16-D

ec-1

1

23-D

ec-1

1

30-D

ec-1

1

6-Ja

n-1

2

13-J

an-1

2

20-J

an-1

2

27-J

an-1

2

3-F

eb-1

2

10-F

eb-1

2

17-F

eb-1

2

24-F

eb-1

2

2-M

ar-1

2

9-M

ar-1

2

16-M

ar-1

2

23-M

ar-1

2

30-M

ar-1

2

6-A

pr-

12

13-A

pr-

12

20-A

pr-

12

27-A

pr-

12

Days

Cycle Time Sprint Boundary Linear (50% @ 21 days or less)Linear (70% @ 40 days or less) Linear (85% @ 71 days or less) Linear (97% @ 126 days or less)Linear (98% @ 133 days or less) Linear (30% @ 8 days or less)

Project : SF 3.4 Base

Team : (All)Median Cycle Time (All Sprints) = 21Average Cycle Time (All Sprints) = 3450% of stories

finished in 21 days or less


y = 21

y = 40

y = 71

y = 126y = 133

y = 80

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

16-S

ep-1

1

23-S

ep-1

1

30-S

ep-1

1

7-O

ct-1

1

14-O

ct-1

1

21-O

ct-1

1

28-O

ct-1

1

4-N

ov-

11

11-N

ov-

11

18-N

ov-

11

25-N

ov-

11

2-D

ec-1

1

9-D

ec-1

1

16-D

ec-1

1

23-D

ec-1

1

30-D

ec-1

1

6-Ja

n-1

2

13-J

an-1

2

20-J

an-1

2

27-J

an-1

2

3-F

eb-1

2

10-F

eb-1

2

17-F

eb-1

2

24-F

eb-1

2

2-M

ar-1

2

9-M

ar-1

2

16-M

ar-1

2

23-M

ar-1

2

30-M

ar-1

2

6-A

pr-

12

13-A

pr-

12

20-A

pr-

12

27-A

pr-

12

Days



Team : (All)Median Cycle Time (All Sprints) = 21Average Cycle Time (All Sprints) = 3485% of stories

finished in 71 days or less


y = 21

y = 40

y = 71

y = 126y = 133

y = 80

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

16-S

ep-1

1

23-S

ep-1

1

30-S

ep-1

1

7-O

ct-1

1

14-O

ct-1

1

21-O

ct-1

1

28-O

ct-1

1

4-N

ov-

11

11-N

ov-

11

18-N

ov-

11

25-N

ov-

11

2-D

ec-1

1

9-D

ec-1

1

16-D

ec-1

1

23-D

ec-1

1

30-D

ec-1

1

6-Ja

n-1

2

13-J

an-1

2

20-J

an-1

2

27-J

an-1

2

3-F

eb-1

2

10-F

eb-1

2

17-F

eb-1

2

24-F

eb-1

2

2-M

ar-1

2

9-M

ar-1

2

16-M

ar-1

2

23-M

ar-1

2

30-M

ar-1

2

6-A

pr-

12

13-A

pr-

12

20-A

pr-

12

27-A

pr-

12

Days



Team : (All)Median Cycle Time (All Sprints) = 21Average Cycle Time (All Sprints) = 34

For the next release we didn’t limit WIP right

away


y = 19

y = 30

y = 43

y = 74

y = 90

y = 11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

6-A

pr-

12

13-A

pr-

12

20-A

pr-

12

27-A

pr-

12

4-M

ay-1

211

-May

-12

18-M

ay-1

2

25-M

ay-1

2

1-Ju

n-1

2

8-Ju

n-1

2

15-J

un

-12

22-J

un

-12

29-J

un

-12

6-Ju

l-12

13-J

ul-

1220

-Ju

l-12

27-J

ul-

12

3-A

ug

-12

10-A

ug

-12

17-A

ug

-12

24-A

ug

-12

31-A

ug

-12

7-S

ep-1

2

14-S

ep-1

2

21-S

ep-1

228

-Sep

-12

5-O

ct-1

2

12-O

ct-1

2

19-O

ct-1

2

26-O

ct-1

2

2-N

ov-

12

9-N

ov-

12

16-N

ov-

12

23-N

ov-

12

30-N

ov-

127-

Dec

-12

14-D

ec-1

2

21-D

ec-1

2

28-D

ec-1

2

4-Ja

n-1

3

11-J

an-1

3

18-J

an-1

3

25-J

an-1

3

1-F

eb-1

3

8-F

eb-1

315

-Feb

-13

22-F

eb-1

3

1-M

ar-1

3

8-M

ar-1

3

15-M

ar-1

3

Days

Cycle Time Sprint Boundary Linear (50% @ 19 days or less) Linear (70% @ 30 days or less)

Linear (85% @ 43 days or less) Linear (97% @ 74 days or less) Linear (98% @ 90 days or less) Linear (30% @ 11 days or less)

Project : (All)

Team : (All)Median Cycle Time (All Sprints) = 19

Average Cycle Time (All Sprints) = 24

201204 201205 201206 201207 201208 201209 201210 201211 201212 201213 201301 201302 VersionOne Sprints

Program : SF - 3.4.100 Program

Story Estimate Type : (All)

When we limited WIP…


y = 19

y = 30

y = 43

y = 74

y = 90

y = 11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

6-A

pr-

12

13-A

pr-

12

20-A

pr-

12

27-A

pr-

12

4-M

ay-1

211

-May

-12

18-M

ay-1

2

25-M

ay-1

2

1-Ju

n-1

2

8-Ju

n-1

2

15-J

un

-12

22-J

un

-12

29-J

un

-12

6-Ju

l-12

13-J

ul-

1220

-Ju

l-12

27-J

ul-

12

3-A

ug

-12

10-A

ug

-12

17-A

ug

-12

24-A

ug

-12

31-A

ug

-12

7-S

ep-1

2

14-S

ep-1

2

21-S

ep-1

228

-Sep

-12

5-O

ct-1

2

12-O

ct-1

2

19-O

ct-1

2

26-O

ct-1

2

2-N

ov-

12

9-N

ov-

12

16-N

ov-

12

23-N

ov-

12

30-N

ov-

127-

Dec

-12

14-D

ec-1

2

21-D

ec-1

2

28-D

ec-1

2

4-Ja

n-1

3

11-J

an-1

3

18-J

an-1

3

25-J

an-1

3

1-F

eb-1

3

8-F

eb-1

315

-Feb

-13

22-F

eb-1

3

1-M

ar-1

3

8-M

ar-1

3

15-M

ar-1

3

Days



Project : (All)







y = 19

y = 30

y = 43

y = 74

y = 90

y = 11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

6-A

pr-

12

13-A

pr-

12

20-A

pr-

12

27-A

pr-

12

4-M

ay-1

211

-May

-12

18-M

ay-1

2

25-M

ay-1

2

1-Ju

n-1

2

8-Ju

n-1

2

15-J

un

-12

22-J

un

-12

29-J

un

-12

6-Ju

l-12

13-J

ul-

1220

-Ju

l-12

27-J

ul-

12

3-A

ug

-12

10-A

ug

-12

17-A

ug

-12

24-A

ug

-12

31-A

ug

-12

7-S

ep-1

2

14-S

ep-1

2

21-S

ep-1

228

-Sep

-12

5-O

ct-1

2

12-O

ct-1

2

19-O

ct-1

2

26-O

ct-1

2

2-N

ov-

12

9-N

ov-

12

16-N

ov-

12

23-N

ov-

12

30-N

ov-

127-

Dec

-12

14-D

ec-1

2

21-D

ec-1

2

28-D

ec-1

2

4-Ja

n-1

3

11-J

an-1

3

18-J

an-1

3

25-J

an-1

3

1-F

eb-1

3

8-F

eb-1

315

-Feb

-13

22-F

eb-1

3

1-M

ar-1

3

8-M

ar-1

3

15-M

ar-1

3

Days



Project : (All)






85% of stories finished in 43 days or less

And the release after that?

43 days

41 days

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

20003.4.100 Open3.4.100 Closed3.4 Open3.4 Closed

D2 RI

We have a problem?

Lessons Learned (so far)

“If you can’t do Scrum why do you think you can do Kanban?”

“It’s because we can’t do Scrum that we have to do Kanban”

Visualization forced collaboration—stronger standups with remote teams; testers said this was the first time they had really “participated” in a standup

System did not really stabilize until WIP limited at story level

At some point we violated all the foundational principles of Kanban

No Classes of Service were harmed in the making of this film

At Siemens HS, back in November 2011, no one had heard of Kanban. First year results convinced all product lines to migrate to Kanban:

–1300 people–About 40 teams–3 continents

Next Steps

Forecasting and Simulation

Teams fighting for scarce resources across complex product lines.

Legislative timelines need careful risk management. Penalties if late.

Need to promise features to many major customers

Story Flow – Current State

Page 50

CONDITIONING FORMAL TESTDELIVERY DEPLOY

ReqtCandidates

Pre-Incept

Incept

Dev Backlog

Pre-Sprint Planning

DEVELOPINGIntegrated Test

PerformanceDeploy Test

SystemTest

PerformanceDeploy Test

Validation/Beta GAAnalysis Develop Test Pre-Integrated

& Perf test

CONDITIONINGC o n ti n u o u s F l o w

FREQDEPLOY

ReqtCandidates

Pre-Incept

DEVELOPING CONTINUOUS TESTING

Delivery

BklogMgt Incept Analysis Develop Test

Pre- integrated

testIT, Perf,Deploy

ST, Perf, Deploy

Validation/beta GA

Feature Flow “Deliver Faster”

Cycle Time

Lead Time

For more information…

Bennet Vallet, Director of Product Development

[email protected]

Daniel S. [email protected]

DO NOT REPRODUCE© Corporate Kanban 2013

Thank-you!

Bennet ValletDaniel S. Vacanti

Business

KANBAN AT SCALE: A SIEMENS HEALTH SERVICES CASE STUDY (BENNET VALLET & DAN VACANTI) - LKCE13